A Matter of Waves

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

A Matter of Waves

I tend to go into these synapsis firing probability outcomes for varies theories.

I don't pretend to know any academic level of science aside from some general physics and chem. However, I do tend to have the ability to understand the physics of physics and have a comfortable and exciting understanding of some quantum theory and probabilities. Just like how I visualise the neural network in our brains transferring an electrical signal from our input devices and developing a fractal almost lightning-like flow through our synapses as it runs probabilities, feeding the information back for review and the feeding the info back into the process until a normalised result is satisfied.

Anyway, this is my first post so Hello if you are reading this for the first time.

Ok, the actual reason for this post is actually more Physics-based, hence the location of this post.

I have a question generated from one of these probability outcomes, which I hope to add more data too or void my theory totally, which I'm quite happy to hear also.

Again, apologies for any lack of understanding.

My question is:

Could Matter be a piece of potential in the form of a wave that holds it's neighbours in a standing wave pattern based on its properties?

Could this Matter wave be endless and link two entangled particles, no matter where they are in the universe. They are locked in the same matter wave. Observing one would cause the wave to collapse into a probability and break its wave connection.

Also, just some simple questions.

Does the size of matter change on a particle when it's doing laps say around the LHC. I'm curious about whether the act of a particle flowing around a circle would cause some form of force that would suggest compression of space around the perimeter for the particle path.

Could changing the path by pushing the particle cause a physical push back in the opposite direction?

Ok I'll leave it there for the moment. My brain is comfortable with this venting.

Thanks guys

Aaron
azzamunza

Re: A Matter of Fields

Aaron,

Welcome to SPCF.

azzamunza wrote:Could Matter be a piece of potential in the form of a wave that holds it's neighbours in a standing wave pattern based on its properties?

This question becomes answerable if rephrased as follows: "Why do electrons occupy orbitals around a nucleus rather than crash into it?" The conventional answer is that they occupy 3D standing wave regions described by the Schrödinger equation. (Colored underlines are clickable links.) When the electrons of neighboring atoms mutually participate in these appropriately modified orbitals, it is considered a covalent bond.

azzamunza wrote:Could this Matter wave be endless and link two entangled particles, no matter where they are in the universe. They are locked in the same matter wave. Observing one would cause the wave to collapse into a probability and break its wave connection.

You are following a "timelike" worldline (4D path) in spacetime. Different observers will see you at different relative speeds but all will agree that you are moving less than universal speed limit c, which is sufficient to qualify your path as timelike.

Electrons (having rest mass like you) also have timelike worldlines but the regions they occupy are governed by electromagnetic (EM) relations with the nucleus. EM influence propagates at speed limit c and is thus, "lightlike".

Quantum entanglement is "spacelike" relationship between particles, which may be seen as instantaneous or even retroactive (backward in time) but never "causal" or communicating any signal, as that would violate speed limit c. Entanglement is thus considered a nontraversable connection which may serve as the reference (like a shared axis) about which the entangled properties are coordinated.

azzamunza wrote:Does the size of matter change on a particle when it's doing laps say around the LHC.

Fundamental particles, such as electrons, are considered "point particles" and thus have no "size" to change. Composite particles, such as protons, have a measurable size which will shrink relativistically in the direction of motion. Similarly the shape of particle fields (such as gravitational intensity) may be expected to shrink in the direction of motion. There can also be changes in the character of fields (e.g. an electric charge will become increasingly magnetic, the faster it is seen to be moving.)

So, if you consider a "particle" to include its fields, yes shape (if not size) alters with motion.

azzamunza wrote:whether the act of a particle flowing around a circle would cause some form of force...Could changing the path by pushing the particle cause a physical push back in the opposite direction?

A circular path is one of constantly changing direction. Superconducting magnets along the LHC don't just motivate the particles but act to contain the beam, which becomes much more massive (relativistically) as it accelerates.

Active Member

Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

azzamunza

Re: A Matter of Fields

Faradave » November 5th, 2018, 11:21 am wrote:

Quantum entanglement is "spacelike" relationship between particles, which may be seen as instantaneous or even retroactive (backward in time) but never "causal" or communicating any signal, as that would violate speed limit c. Entanglement is thus considered a nontraversable connection which may serve as the reference (like a shared axis) about which the entangled properties are coordinated.

How can it be possible that entanglement is “spacelike” but never “causal?” When entanglement is lost, there is a chance that both formerly entangled particles will be simultaneously and permanently changed otherwise we could never observe that they were ever entangled in the first place. Something happens at both ends of the entanglement which requires a prior two-way communication. I don’t understand how coordination works without communication.

Recent experiments to determine the rate at which the changes take place post entanglement find them to be far greater than c. Instant as far as anyone can tell.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 802
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

bangstrom wrote:Recent experiments to determine the rate at which the changes take place post entanglement find them to be far greater than c. Instant as far as anyone can tell.

That's right! Yet a "spacelike" interval is defined as a faster-than-light connection. That is ∆space > ∆time, so it has slope ∆space/∆time > 1 (speed c = 1 in natural units).

Since faster-than-light travel is equivalent to going backward in time, any such transmission would not be causal but instead retrocausal, the cause occurring after the effect. No such phenomenon has ever been observed nor even allowed in the Standard Model (which incorporates Relativity).

Spacetime intervals, divided into regions based upon slope (inverse of speed), are conventionally illustrated in the Minkowski diagram (left). The retro-causal nature of spacelike connections is better seen as negative slope with undistorted (Euclidean) interval-time coordinates (right).

bangstrom wrote:When entanglement is lost, ...both formerly entangled particles will be simultaneously and permanently changed ...Something happens at both ends of the entanglement...

Breaking entanglement is indeed a mutual change in state. That change is caused from outside the entanglement and, as you point out, can occur only at the ends of the entanglement connection (recently characterized as a wormhole). A curved-space, radial-time model of the cosmos (consistent with the interval-time coordinates above and the expanding balloon analogy) shows a simultaneous entanglement connection is inaccessible to the present because, being faster-than-light, it tunnels through the past as vx.

Modeling space expanding as the cosmos ages along temporal radii, speed limit c (vmax) is tangent to any location on a spatial simultaneity with a non-traversable entanglement connection available along the shortest 4D path available (time= t1 to time = t1) via vx.

bangstrom wrote:I don't understand how coordination works without communication.

It works like a long umbilical tether between astronauts in deep space. Even out of sight and without communicating, they can, by prior agreement, both spin oppositely with respect to the tether. This is analogous to a quantum total-spin-zero entangled state with respect to their vx connection.
Attachments
Distant astronauts, entangled by a tether, can each unilaterally adhere to a prior mutual spin state by referring to their shared connection (the tether) rather than by communicating with each other.

Active Member

Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

Faradave » November 6th, 2018, 10:42 am wrote:
Since faster-than-light travel is equivalent to going backward in time, any such transmission would not be causal but instead retrocausal, the cause occurring after the effect. No such phenomenon has ever been observed nor even allowed in the Standard Model (which incorporates Relativity).

Never observed? Any observation at one end of an entangled pair of particles causing the simultaneous loss of entanglement at the opposite end can be viewed as “retrocausal” by any observer nearer to the remote end. Every observation of entanglement is an observation of a phenomenon contrary to SR's second postulate (and the second postulate alone) which calls into question the validity of the second postulate about nothing faster than light. Specifically, entanglement is a violation of the EPR effect which is nonessential to SR. The violation of the EPR effect has been known since the experiments of Bell and Aspect in the early sixties.

Faradave » November 6th, 2018, 10:42 am wrote:
bangstrom wrote:I don't understand how coordination works without communication.

It works like a long umbilical tether between astronauts in deep space. Even out of sight and without communicating, they can, by prior agreement, both spin oppositely with respect to the tether. This is analogous to a quantum total-spin-zero entangled state with respect to their vx connection.

A “prior agreement” does not make a physical connection nor does it imply the maintenance of a total-spin-zero entangled state and there is no demonstrable tether with entanglement. Your model works as a model for entanglement only if it can be demonstrated to have an observable difference between a connection and no connection at all. How is your model for entanglement any different from a nonexistent connection?
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 802
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

bangstrom wrote:…entanglement is an observation of a phenomenon contrary to SR's second postulate …which calls into question the validity of the second postulate about nothing faster than light.

Of course! More than that, I understood it. Did you? I invite you to provide any quote from it supporting faster-than-light communication. What I find is:

"However all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements, and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible."

The lesson being that "correlation" is different than "communication" or "translation", as shown in this Minkowski diagram.

You're missing the difference between retro-temporal (correlation) and retro-causal (communication & translation), which I find better illustrated in interval-time coordinates.
Interval-time coordinates ("Times Square") reveal faster-than-light correlation as being retro-temporal, which includes an instantaneous connection in some frames.

bangstrom wrote:The violation of the EPR effect has been known since the experiments of Bell and Aspect in the early sixties.

If by "violation of the EPR effect" you mean "violation of Bell's inequality", we agree. The entanglement correlation connection is indeed "spacelike" or "superluminal" but it is also non-traversable.

"They proposed that a non-traversable wormhole (Einstein–Rosen bridge or ER bridge) is equivalent to … quantum entanglement … An entangled state is a linear superposition of separable states. … a superposition of such states is connected by a wormhole. … The authors pushed this conjecture even further by claiming any entangled pair of particles … are connected by Planck scale wormholes."

bangstrom wrote:How is your model for entanglement any different from a nonexistent connection?

The physical connection is a wormhole as quoted above. I described it as a "spinhole" three years prior to those noted authors. I further model the exact location of such wormholes, inaccessibly traversing the past (see vx above). Thus, entanglement may only be broken by interaction with one of the entangled particles directly. ~ Beauty! ~

Active Member

Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 11:53 am wrote:
bangstrom wrote:

Of course! More than that, I understood it. Did you? I invite you to provide any quote from it supporting faster-than-light communication. What I find is:

"However all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements, and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible."

I interpret what the quote calls "mutual information between particles " to involve a ftl exchange of quantum information which is not the same as an exchange of classical information.
My understanding is that what the quote calls the “mutual information” or a “correlation between the measurements” is spacelike. Then it concludes that the same spacelike “correlation” can not be used a ftl transmission of information but it fails to explain why.

My explanation as to why is because we can never observe a spacelike communication as ftl. It will always appear as timelike because, as we know from SR, any two events separated by space are always separated by time at the rate of one second for every 300,000 km of distance. This makes it impossible to observe any spacelike signal as anything but timelike since we can only observe as timelike the sending and reception of the signal.

Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 11:53 am wrote:
bangstrom wrote:How is your model for entanglement any different from a nonexistent connection?

The physical connection is a wormhole as quoted above. I described it as a "spinhole" three years prior to those noted authors. I further model the exact location of such wormholes, inaccessibly traversing the past (see vx above). Thus, entanglement may only be broken by interaction with one of the entangled particles directly. ~ Beauty! ~

I understand what you are saying but it misses the point of my question. My question was about observations. What observation(s) supports your model. How can we observe two or more particles, like your two astronauts, and know they are or ever were connected? How do two particles connected by a wormhole/spinhole behave any differently from any two non-connected particles. I don’t see where this is a part of your model.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 802
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Shared vs. Sent

bangstrom wrote:…quantum information which is not the same as an exchange of classical information

Keep it simple. Information is information. A qubit is simply a bit in superposition. That means it can exist in an undecided state (roughly, like a coin in mid flip) and, relating to entanglement, that the state can be correlated. That does not mean information is transmitted. Rather a shared state is distributed over more than one location. That's a key feature of "superposition", being in more than one position at a time.

So, no one in quantum mechanics is saying that entangled particles are swapping (i.e. communicating) information back and forth faster-than-light. Rather, the state is considered distributed over both locations. That may sound like instantaneous communication, and that might be OK, …IF you can understand that instantaneous "motion" isn't really moving, its being (in multiple locations at once).

bangstrom wrote:Then it concludes that the same spacelike “correlation” can not be used a ftl transmission of information but it fails to explain why.

Yup. Think of "correlation" as "coordination". The entanglement connection is a physical reference about which shared properties may be coordinated without the need for communication.

So, if this reference connection is characterized as a spinhole (spacelike-interconnecting wormhole) why is it non-traversable? Because of the fundamental unidirectionality of time. We mistakenly take bidirectional spatial freedom for granted. But in a curved-space, radial-time model, bidirectional translational freedom is only available so long as it does not violate the outward-only direction of time. That's exactly what vx attempts to do in spanning the shortest possible route between two locations in the same spatial simultaneity. Still, nature doesn't forbid such a connection, so long as nothing (e.g. mass-energy or information) can go through it.

bangstrom wrote:as we know from SR, any two events separated by space are always separated by time at the rate of one second for every 300,000 km of distance

That will confuse you. The events of (you, now) and (me, now) exist separated in space but not by time.

Any two causally related events exist such that the effect event is on or within the light cone of the cause event. (If transmission entails rest mass, the effect event lies within.)

bangstrom wrote:What observation(s) supports your model. … How do two particles connected by a wormhole/spinhole behave any differently from any two non-connected particles.

My model (Phyxed) is meant to recover all the observations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (without gaps or weirdness). So, in this case, what you seek is the essence of Bell's experiment. It has many versions, all of which statistically demonstrate two spatially separate, entangled particles share properties as if they were one. He deserves all the credit he's given for this. Phyxed merely reveals where the spinhole resides.

Active Member

Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

Re: Shared vs. Sent

Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 9:09 pm wrote:

bangstrom wrote:What observation(s) supports your model. … How do two particles connected by a wormhole/spinhole behave any differently from any two non-connected particles.

My model (Phyxed) is meant to recover all the observations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (without gaps or weirdness). So, in this case, what you seek is the essence of Bell's experiment. It has many versions, all of which statistically demonstrate two spatially separate, entangled particles share properties as if they were one. He deserves all the credit he's given for this. Phyxed merely reveals where the spinhole resides.

I am not asking about Bell’s experiments so this does not answer my question. I keep rephrasing the question because I can’t find the answer in Phyxed that matches Standard Model of Particle Physics. I may be missing something. You mention “spinholes” and you explain what they can not do. I can follow that but it leaves me wondering, What do spinholes do? What observable change do they leave behind that gives evidence that they exist?

My confusion begins where you say spinholes can not do what my understanding is that entanglement does.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 802
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re:Symmetry for You & Me

bangstrom wrote:You mention “spinholes” and you explain what they can not do. I can follow that but it leaves me wondering, What do spinholes do? What observable change do they leave behind that gives evidence that they exist? ... you say spinholes can not do what my understanding is that entanglement does.

To the extent that you assert faster-than-light communication, spinholes do not provide that.

Spinholes are a passive reference analogous to a mutual tether, by which two distant astronauts can coordinate their spins. Passive, yet if cut, assurance of coordination is immediately lost.

But particles are not thinking astronauts so, how can they coordinate anything? The answer lies with the conservation laws, in the case of quantum spin, conservation of angular momentum. The total angular momentum after a particle pair creation must equal that before creation, typically the pair is entangled with total spin zero.

You've heard of Noether's theorem which states that for each such conservation law there is a corresponding symmetry. No spatial axis is adequate to describe quantum spin. That axis must be non-spatial so that quantum spin can occur in a spatial 3-plane of rotation. (Classical spin occurs in an ordinary 2-plane of rotation.) A spinhole acts as a mutual, extra-spatial axis of symmetry for quantum spin. This is seen as chord vx to the spatial arc (time = t1) above.

Active Member

Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

Re: Re:Symmetry for You & Me

Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 9:58 am wrote:
You've heard of Noether's theorem which states that for each such conservation law there is a corresponding symmetry. No spatial axis is adequate to describe quantum spin. That axis must be non-spatial so that quantum spin can occur in a spatial 3-plane of rotation. (Classical spin occurs in an ordinary 2-plane of rotation.) A spinhole acts as a mutual, extra-spatial axis of symmetry for quantum spin. This is seen as chord vx to the spatial arc (time = t1) above.

I see, or better, what I don't see here appears to be a problem in that there is nothing to observe. If spinholes can form and be lost without leaving a trace, how do you know they exist? They don't appear to do or change anything to the particles involved that is evident to an observer.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 802
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Fragility Ability

bangstrom wrote:If spinholes can form and be lost without leaving a trace, how do you know they exist?

I consider that a breakthrough in your understanding! How can something be lost unless it had existed in the first place? That's exactly why we believe in spinholes (or more generally, a spacelike entanglement connection).

Entanglement is actually quite fragile (again, it has to be something in order to be fragile). Any measurable interaction on either particle will break the entanglement (termed "quantum decoherence"). Phyxed interprets this as knocking the particle off the shared spacelike spin axis. (Recall, "spacelike" means having a superluminal slope in 4D, not "spatial" as within a simultaneity.)

Here's a question you might ask yourself. If entangled particles could somehow communicate faster-than-light, why should that stop on disentanglement? Electrons persist in communicating at speed c with each other (electrically repelling), even when they aren't transmitting light quanta. Should superluminal communication be different?

bangstrom wrote:[Spinholes] don't appear to do or change anything to the particles involved that is evident to an observer.

What they do is provide spin correlations (established by observing many pairs of entangled particles) which are statistically impossible without a coordination reference.

In a single particle, prepared with spin up, the sign (+/- for parallel or antiparallel spin direction) of subsequently measured spin components correlate statistically according to the angle the new axis makes with the prepared axis.

Entanglement is established by the fact that such spin correlations also occur between two spatially separate but entangled particles, in contrast to unentangled particles. That's what Bell's theorem brilliantly did for quantum mechanics.

Active Member

Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

Re: Shared vs. Sent

Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 9:09 pm wrote:
bangstrom wrote:…quantum information which is not the same as an exchange of classical information

Keep it simple. Information is information. A qubit is simply a bit in superposition. That means it can exist in an undecided state (roughly, like a coin in mid flip) and, relating to entanglement, that the state can be correlated.

In QM literature the qubit is the most basic unit of information and it is often referred to as simply “information” and that is information in its simplest form. A qubit is a single bit of quantum information about the identity of a particle and it need not be in superposition.

“In quantum computing, a qubit (/ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit (sometimes qbit) is the basic unit of quantum information—the quantum version of the classical binary bit physically realized with a two-state device.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 9:09 pm wrote:So, no one in quantum mechanics is saying that entangled particles are swapping (i.e. communicating) information back and forth faster-than-light. Rather, the state is considered distributed over both locations. That may sound like instantaneous communication, and that might be OK, …IF you can understand that instantaneous "motion" isn't really moving, its being (in multiple locations at once).

The distribution over both locations becomes separate and determinate at the instant entanglement is lost and the change is simultaneous or at least far too fast to measure. No one in quantum mechanics is saying the transition (loss of entanglement) and the establishment of fixed quantum states at both ends is limited by light speed.
………………..
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 802
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Fragility Ability

Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 6:01 pm wrote:
bangstrom wrote:If spinholes can form and be lost without leaving a trace, how do you know they exist?

I consider that a breakthrough in your understanding! How can something be lost unless it had existed in the first place? That's exactly why we believe in spinholes (or more generally, a spacelike entanglement connection).

The point of my question was in what followed the quote above. I see you answered my question later but it is still unclear.
Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 6:01 pm wrote:Here's a question you might ask yourself. If entangled particles could somehow communicate faster-than-light, why should that stop on disentanglement? Electrons persist in communicating at speed c with each other (electrically repelling), even when they aren't transmitting light quanta. Should superluminal communication be different?

Entanglement is a non-local "spacelike" transfer of information but classical communication is limited by c.

Entanglement is a temporary, non-local connection between particles involving at least two qubits of information. The observation of one entangled particle extracts one qubit of information and exhausts the system of its “two bits” ending entanglement. The observation of the other particle extracts the other bit of information from the system.

Non entangled particles (usually electrons) can spontaneously resume entanglement with other particles. Entanglement occurs when two remote particles establish a resonate state where they share a common Schroedinger wavefunction as if they were side-by-side even though they may be well separated in space and beyond speed-of-light contact.

Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 6:01 pm wrote:What they do is provide spin correlations (established by observing many pairs of entangled particles) which are statistically impossible without a coordination reference.

That is also what entanglement does. OK, so that is what they do but you lost me with the next statement.

Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 6:01 pm wrote:In a single particle, prepared with spin up, the sign (+/- for parallel or antiparallel spin direction) of subsequently measured spin components correlate statistically according to the angle the new axis makes with the prepared axis.

With entanglement, as soon as you observe the one spin direction about a common axis, the other is also known and entanglement is lost so there can be no “prepared” particle. The first observation is random and unpredictable.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 802
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: To the Bit-ter End

bangstrom wrote: the qubit is the most basic unit of information and it is often referred to as simply “information” and that is information in its simplest form. A qubit is a single bit of quantum information about the identity of a particle and it need not be in superposition. “In quantum computing, a qubit (/ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit (sometimes qbit) is the basic unit of quantum information—the quantum version of the classical binary bit physically realized with a two-state device.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

An Arabic numeral is the most basic unit of decimal information. That doesn't make it the most basic unit of information of all. Neither is the qubit the most basic unit of all. A decimal carries between 3 and 4 bits of information. This is known because 3 bits can encode 8 characters and 4 bits can encode 16 characters. The ten numerals 0-9 lie in between.

Like other non-binary numerals, a qubit carries more than one bit of information, potentially 2 bits worth.
"It is possible to fully encode one bit in one qubit. However, a qubit can hold more information, e.g. up to two bits using superdense coding."

bangstrom wrote:No one in quantum mechanics is saying the transition (loss of entanglement) and the establishment of fixed quantum states at both ends is limited by light speed.

Right. And no one in QM is saying that information ever communicates faster than speed limit c. Communication and correlation are different phenomena.

bangstrom wrote:Entanglement is a non-local "spacelike" transfer of information but classical communication is limited by c.

We fundamentally disagree here. Disentanglement represents an instantaneous change of state (e.g. from one to two) not communnication of any sort. If I cut a loaf of bread in half, no matter how long it is, it becomes two half loaves. No communication to the ends required.

bangstrom wrote:you lost me with the next statement.

It's a little complicated (best to forget I mentioned it). Of two total-spin-zero, entangled particles you measure one and find it is UP. You then know the other is DOWN if measured on the same axis. But correlations of a statistical nature occur if spin of the second is instead measured on a different axis. Bell's inequality is violated in that the correlations found resemble those within a single shared state (i.e. like different spin components within a single particle), even though widely separated. It shows they were entangled but still not superluminal communication.

Active Member

Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

Re: To the Bit-ter End

Faradave » November 30th, 2018, 1:17 am wrote:
Like other non-binary numerals, a qubit carries more than one bit of information, potentially 2 bits worth.
"It is possible to fully encode one bit in one qubit. However, a qubit can hold more information, e.g. up to two bits using superdense coding."

Superdense coding requires some prior coordination of the coding for both ends of the signal so it isn’t really two classical bits in one qubit but it has that effect.
Faradave » November 30th, 2018, 1:17 am wrote:
Right. And no one in QM is saying that information ever communicates faster than speed limit c. Communication and correlation are different phenomena.

I say correlation requires a communication. Anyhow, how fast do those in QM say correlation is?

Faradave » November 30th, 2018, 1:17 am wrote:
We fundamentally disagree here. Disentanglement represents an instantaneous change of state (e.g. from one to two) not communnication of any sort. If I cut a loaf of bread in half, no matter how long it is, it becomes two half loaves. No communication to the ends required.

Cutting a loaf in half is nothing like entanglement unless you start with two loaves of bread in two locations and cutting one reveals it to be rye bread which means the other must be wheat.
Also, the kind of bread one finds must be random on both ends, so if the loaf on one end is found to be wheat, the loaf on the other end must be rye in a statistical distribution that satisfies Bell’s inequality.
Somehow the information on one end must be communicated to the loaf on the other end if the other loaf is to “know” what kind of bread it is to become.

If you don’t like the word “communicated” then tell me what you would call it. John Cramer calls it a “handshake” or “transaction” between two particles or oddly the Catholic word “transubstantiation”seems appropriate.

The problem with spinholes is that they must be transversable in both directions of time if they are to “transubstantiate” the information from one loaf of bread to another otherwise they can’t transubstantiatiate on more than one end which is what entanglement does and this is the mark of its existence.

There is no time direction in entanglement where events are simultaneous or atemporal or possibly just too fast to measure.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 802
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: To the Bit-ter End

bangstrom » November 30th, 2018, 10:39 pm wrote:If you don’t like the word “communicated” then tell me what you would call it. John Cramer calls it a “handshake” or “transaction” between two particles or oddly the Catholic word “transubstantiation”seems appropriate.

John Cramer. This is the guy who is going to claim that Special Relativity is not a synonym for macroscopic causality. Hold up (you say) , you can violate macroscopic causality and still be compatible with SR? (you ask)

Yeah, it's bombs going off all over the place.

John Cramer wrote:If a nonlocal signal could be transmitted through measurements at separated locations performed on two entangled photons, the signal would be ``sent`` at the time of the arrival of one photon at one location and ``received`` at the time of arrival of the other photon at the other location, both along Lorenz-invariant light-like world lines. By varying path lengths to the two locations, these events could be made to occur in any order and time separation in any reference frame. Therefore, nonlocal signals, even superluminal and retrocausal ones, could not be used to establish a fixed simultaneity relation between two separated space-time points, because the sending and receiving of such signals do not have fixed time relations. Nonlocal quantum signaling, if it were to exist, would be completely compatible with special relativity. However, it would probably not be compatible with macroscopic causality.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1846
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

Re: A Matter of Waves

The loss of entanglement results in the appearance of two simultaneous events at two remote locations. We know from special relativity that any two otherwise simultaneous events separated by distance are also separated by time at the rate of a one second delay for every 300,000 km of distance. Because of this, we can never observe simultaneous events as simultaneous.

The nearer of the two events will always appear first followed by the appearance of the more distant event which makes the observer see his nearest event as happening first and the more distant event as happening later. An observer on the other end will see the opposite ordering of events with his nearest event as happening first followed by the more distant event.

If it is possible to determine the local ordering of events so we can say one event was likely to have happened first and the other second, then we can determine the causal order of the two events, in which case, the observer on one end can be said to observe the events in their causal order while the other observer saw the same events in retrocausal order.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 802
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: Fragility Ability

bangstrom » November 29th, 2018, 1:53 pm wrote:Non entangled particles (usually electrons) can spontaneously resume entanglement with other particles. Entanglement occurs when two remote particles establish a resonate state where they share a common Schroedinger wavefunction as if they were side-by-side even though they may be well separated in space and beyond speed-of-light contact.

This is good progress. Your understanding is almost there. Do you know why physicists conclude that they share a common wave function?

(hint: The thing you said about "establish a resonant state"{sic} is very wrong.)

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1846
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

Re: A Matter of Waves

I don't want to get too entangled in this thread, but what is drawn above is flat Minkowski space. You cannot take flat Minkowski space, draw arrows in it, and declare that one of the arrows is a wormhole. The red Vx here is definitely not a wormhole, a la ER=EPR. Wormholes result from extreme distortions in spacetime, and are literally on the opposite side of the spectrum to flat Minkowski (which formally represents empty space).

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1846
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

Re: A Hole in 1, 2 or 3!

hyksos wrote:I don't want to get too entangled in this thread…
Sure, you do.

hyksos wrote:…what is drawn above is flat Minkowski space.
Do you really believe it's "flat? Though appearing so, " Minkowski spacetime represents a hyperbolic geometry. That's the way convention explains the minus sign in the interval equation.

"As we shall see, it is not really possible to think of space-time as a real, ordinary [Euclidean] geometry because of that difference in sign.…the geometry of space-time is not Euclidean in the ordinary sense … peculiar in certain respects. some signs are reversed and there is a c in it." R. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces p.97

My curved-space, radial-time image, adapted from Sean Carroll's (grey aspects), is most simply characterized with 4D polar coordinates. Time is the radial coordinate, indicating the age of the cosmos, in the rest frame of the Big Bang (and the cosmic background). There would also be three angular coordinates, one for each independent spatial direction. Of course the later require an arbitrary reference ray, such as the age/location of the north star.

Now, if you consider just V0 and Vmax you have my Euclidean interval-time coordinates, which are indeed flat!

hyksos wrote:You cannot take flat Minkowski space, draw arrows in it, and declare that one of the arrows is a wormhole.
I'll do even better! V0 and V1 are "tinholes" (timelike intra-connecting wormholes), otherwise known as worldlines. They connect a particle's past to its future.

Vmax is a pinhole (particle-interaction wormhole), representing interval contact between emitter and absorber. Though a degenerate kind of wormhole, defined with zero interval (i.e. internal or intrinsic) span, it nevertheless bypasses space and time of indefinite (but always equal) extent. Having lightlike inclination (tangent to curved space), this is the conduit through which light quanta are transmitted, by direct, physical contact. Massless particles (e.g. photons) are a nice but superfluous model.

Vx is a spinhole (spacelike-interconnecting wormhole) representing the shortest possible connection between two different locations in a spatial simultaneity. Having superluminal inclination (forbidden - backward in time), they are non-traversable but can serve as a coordination reference for entangled properties, such as spin.

hyksos wrote:…Vx here is definitely not a wormhole, a la ER=EPR. Wormholes result from extreme distortions in spacetime…
You're being too narrow minded. What about Wheeler's ultra-tiny wormholes? I'm not purporting something big enough to transit a starship. Zero-diameter wormholes are free.

Yes, Susskind and Maldecana begin considering entangled black holes (obviously, involving enormous gravity), but their work extends to ordinary particles.

"General relativity contains solutions in which two distant black holes are connected through the interior via a wormhole, or Einstein-Rosen bridge. These solutions can be interpreted as maximally entangled states of two black holes that form a complex EPR pair. We suggest that similar bridges might be present for more general entangled states." [1]

"Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) pair. In the holographic dual, the entanglement is encoded in a geometry of a nontraversable wormhole on the world sheet of the flux tube connecting the pair. This gives a simple example supporting the recent claim by Maldacena and Susskind that EPR pairs and nontraversable wormholes are equivalent descriptions of the same physics." [2]

"...the bulk dual of an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair is a string with a wormhole on its world sheet. We suggest that this constitutes a holographically dual realization of the creation of a Wheeler wormhole." [3]

"The authors pushed this conjecture even further by claiming any entangled pair of particles—even particles not ordinarily considered to be black holes, and pairs of particles with different masses or spin, or with charges which aren't opposite—are connected by Planck scale wormholes. " [4]

Active Member

Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)
 TheVat liked this post

Re: A Matter of Waves

You're being too narrow minded. What about Wheeler's ultra-tiny wormholes?

I am not narrow-minded, and I have no reason to change anything I have typed into this thread.

The authors pushed this conjecture even further by claiming any entangled pair of particles—even particles not ordinarily considered to be black holes, and pairs of particles with different masses or spin, or with charges which aren't opposite—are connected by Planck scale wormholes.

As I have said 10,478 times on this forum : WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR LEARNING. It is for reference. Since it is not for learning, it is even more badly used as support of someone's pet theories. You will gain nothing but confusion trying to learn about ERBs from wikipedia.

I have linked wikipedia many times here at this forum, but I am not contradicting myself. I only do so under the most duressful of situations, and only when I have extra-wikipedial reasons to believe the article is very well-written. In this case, it is certainly not.

Maldecena and Susskind are working at the very edges of HEP applied to QFT theories related to QCD vacuum. The idea is that the QCD vacuum will 'break' (or "become unstable") in some strange way if you have a laser of enormous energy shining through it. The mathematics says that the laser will generate magnetic fields that are powerful enough to cause the following to happen: The QCD vacuum is considered to be constantly producing particle/anti-particle pairs that flit in and out of existence. This is permitted as long as they flit fast enough to fall underneath Heisenberg's radar. If a magnetic field (of astronomical energy) is present, then the vacuum will cause a quark and an anti-quark pair to convert from virtual particles to real particles. To ease the digestion of the material linked below, the grad students refer to these two quarks as being maximally entangled. These calculations are taking place on a chalkboard in a mathematical universe, using energies that are far far beyond what can be achieved by human civilization. None of this stuff is established science. This is the very far bleeding edge of theoretical HEP.

Maldecena and Susskind then borrow some tricks from string theory, that relate to things on the outside boundary of a worldsheet of two diverging quarks. In this context, we are still talking about an immense magnetic field that has "actualized" a virtual quark/anti-quark pair. ( We are still referring to high-energy scenarios that cannot be manifested by human tech) They knew already that this pair of quarks must be entangled. Then they found a mathematical correlation between their entanglement and ERBs ("wormholes") Two separated black holes were known to have been entangled, but then they found the same description can be applied to the worldsheet of diverging quarks in this scenario.

{{
references to the above material, if you can find time to poke around in them.
}}

Regarding ERBs between two low-energy photons, the best I could find was Susskind referring to that idea as a quote, "ambitious form of ER=EPR". The experiment that he provided was to imagine that you shot many photons through a double-slit in such a way that they would cause interference with themselves. Imagine that at the end of both slits were two boxes collecting the energy of those photons. Imagine you continued to fire photons into the battery boxes for years. Then centuries.. then millennia. Shoot photons and collect them in the two boxes for billions of years.

In the deep future, suppose the boxes have collected so much energy that they have collapsed into two black holes. Susskind and Maldecena claim those two black holes would be connected by an ERB.

It is unlikely that ER=EPR is a literal description of anything. Susskind uses the equation in an almost tongue-in-cheek way. In journal writing, the equation is not real. It is not an actual equation from actual physics.

To communicate what this mathematical correlation really means to physicists, I will quote someone in his own words trying to define that strange equation.
Leonard Susskind wrote:What all of this suggests to me, and what I want to suggest to you, is that quantum mechanics and gravity are far more tightly related than we (or at least I) had ever imagined. The essential nonlocalities of quantum mechanics -- the need for instantaneous communication in order to classically simulate entanglement, parallels the nonlocal potentialities of general relativity.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1846
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

Re: A Matter of Waves

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1846
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

Re: Coming to Terms with ER=EPR

I think I see the source of confusion. Susskind related (in a YouTube interview I can't recall), that someone sent him an email with "ER=EPR" in the subject line and he "immediately understood" what they were getting at. He then also capitalized on the catchy moniker.

To the extent that you take "ER" to literally mean "Einstein-Rosen bridge", you will necessarily find ER=EPR to entail gravity. If, on the other hand, you allow "ER" to be shorthand for "wormholes" generically (as I do), then gravity becomes optional.

We should note that "EPR" literally refers to a specific paper written by Einstein, Podolsk & Rosen in their famous debate with Bohr. But it has now become shorthand for "entanglement" generically (ironic, since the EPR authors actually argued against entanglement as it is currently understood).

It's up to you what degree of literary license to allow ER=EPR in your own use but be prepared for wiggle room from other sources.

I'm going to continue to describe non-classical connections between events (especially particle-related events) in terms of wormholes, as given above. They provide the simplest model,s as far as I'm concerned, no strings, no extra dimensions, no massless or virtual particles.

Regarding the attempt to link gravity to entanglement. I agree, this is far fetched. There may be a way to satisfactorily relate them but it will be very complex, as I believe you relate. That's because gravity is much more easily modeled with pinholes. Elegance aside, I won't put you through the model again.

I find Wikipedia exceedingly convenient, free (except for a modest annual voluntary donation) and no ads! It's certainly not my only resource but I do learn from it. Wiki's references alone make it worth the trip.

Active Member

Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

Re: A Matter of Waves

Be aware that the term “orbit” is used to describe electrons in relation to the nucleus so we can intuitively grasp it. It is not sensible to think of “orbits” in any normal sense of the word regarding larger bodies like stars, planets and moons.

Resident Member

Posts: 5656
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

Re: A Matter of Waves

I think the problem we are suffering from here is a disconnect between what the theoretical physicists actually found and what we want and secretly desire for them to find. I will explain this by first describing my own personal confusion. Then presenting two different scenarios, which are different (but not obviously so).

1. My confusion.
So say that entangled particles have a ERB running between them. An ERB is just a very twisted region of spacetime.. kind of curled up into a tube, and may even be "infinitely thin" at some points, as far I know or care. However I try to wrap my mind around it, I do not see how this "explains" entanglement -- at all. Unless and until you suggest some sort of signal is moving through the ERB between the particles do you land on an "explanation". Not a single paper, publication, youtube talk, interview, nor wikipedia page has suggested a signal traversing the ERB between the particles.

Something is amiss.

bangstrom has already expressed this suspicion above.

2. Scenario 2.
Imagine that the theoretical physics community has only found some kind of mathematical duality between ERBs and entanglement. Or perhaps they have proven they are "equivalent" in the funny mathematical way they often do. "Equivalent" in many cases actually means both equations can be shown to "reduce to" each other after pages and pages of algebraic manipulation. They "imply" one another, in other words. We reach nothing more than what Susskind himself referred to as a (quote) "mathematical analogy".

3. Scenario 3.
A person comes along, and in their confusion is hoodwinked by popular science journalism. They believe these ERB wormholes are like actually physically and mechanically there. As if these are descriptions of actual objects existing in actual space. Not mere "mathematical dualisms" , but these are actual descriptions of actual extant objects in spacetime. They are led astray by the science-fictiony analogies spun by journalists into thinking the Susskind and Maldecena are talking directly about hard, concrete existing physical structures that could be seen with a sufficiently powerful microscope.

The principle point that I'm trying to communicate is that Scenario2 and Scenario3 are not the same thing. String theorists have a long track record of discovering purely mathematical "dualisms" which exist entirely on a chalkboard. They get very excited about them, and often their work leaks out into the public through science journalism. So take M-theory. This is the claim that all the five variations of superstring theories can be represented in an 11-dimensional theory by taking limiting cases. In particular case above of ER=EPR papers, you will see copious references to the ADS/CFT Correspondence. The key word here being "correspondence". What the hell does that mean? "Correspondence"? Science journalism grabs a hold of this and start running around saying the universe is a hologram painted on a surface that is located at infinity. The reality is that theoretical physicists are so deep into abstract math that they have merely found out that if you had a lower-dimensional field theory on a anti-DeSitter spacetime, then it could be shown to be "equivalent to" (don't you love it?) to a 3D description with gravity. I'm sure these suspicious mathematical "equivalences" have something profound to say about the universe around us -- but what that is exactly nobody knows. Science journalists get a hold of it, and act like scientists pointed a telescope at distant galaxies and saw a giant hologram structure sitting there to be looked at.

Analogously, they pointed their microscopes at photons in an optics lab and saw wormholes connecting them! That's absurd..and there is something about this that is bothering you. You know this is not what they found. I mean most of these black hole EPR papers are reasoning out how three particles cannot be entangled at the same time .. because reasons ... therefore if there were two black holes with a firewall then this would violate such-and-such principle but if we consider the worldsheet between two quarks moving at near c, then etc etc. I'm certain these unexpected , amazing, breathtaking mathematical oddities show up in these formalisms with their Yang-Mills and their high-energy symmetry-breakings and their "worldsheets". Sure. I'm sure all very exciting stuff.

But at no stage would I start to believe that researchers are like, seeing wormholes over at the LHC. (Mathematical 'equivalences' and 'correspondences' aside , ) this is not happening.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1846
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

Re:The 'Real' Deal

All I've done above is rename the three kinds of worldlines to show a their commonality as objects.

1. timelike as "tinholes", which connect a particle’s past to its future. It may be argued they aren't real objects but it can be equally-well argued that in 4D a particle is its worldline. Their unique worldlines is the only way for example, to distinguish two electrons.

2. lightlike as "pinholes", which temporarily connect particles. Their zero magnitude is why I argue photons don't exist. But even a null vector has direction, which suggest pinholes can change direction. pinhole + chronaxial spin = Gaussian field, with a "particular" center.

3. spacelike as "spinholes", which temporarily connect entangled particles. These are notoriously fragile, suggesting that a spinhole is a repurposed pinhole. Any interaction (via pinhole) breaks entanglement, as if the connection was yanked back into a lightlike inclination.

hyksos wrote:An ERB … may even be "infinitely thin" at some points... I do not see how this "explains" entanglement -- at all. Unless and until you suggest some sort of signal is moving through…
Correlation is better thought of as coordination than communication. A spinhole can act as a common axis about which intrinsic spins for example, may coordinate at a distance. No signal transmission required.

hyksos wrote:'Equivalent' in many cases actually means both equations can be shown to 'reduce to' each other after pages and pages of algebraic manipulation. They 'imply' one another, in other words.
Agreed.

hyksos wrote:A person…believe[s] these ERB wormholes are like actually physically and mechanically there.…actual objects existing in actual space. Not mere "mathematical dualisms"… actual extant objects in spacetime…existing physical structures…
Yup, I do. If for example, an entanglement connection is not real, it can't be fragile. A broken connection is a connection that was real.

Physics isn't physics unless it's about the physical. All the models I provide are decidedly physical. Interval-time coordinates for example, are more real than spacetime because intervals are invariant.

hyksos wrote:The reality is that theoretical physicists are so deep into abstract math to a 3D description with gravity. I'm sure these … have something profound to say about the universe around us -- but what that is exactly nobody knows.
I agree some "physicists" have become mathematicians without realizing it.

hyksos wrote:…most of these black hole EPR papers are reasoning out how three particles cannot be entangled at the same time… because reasons…
Just an aside, my guess is heat fragility. Note that in sharing a single quantum state, I expect all the particles of a Bose-Einstein condensate to be entangled.

"… allowed to share a quantum state. Einstein proposed that cooling bosonic atoms to a very low temperature would cause them to fall (or 'condense') into the lowest accessible quantum state… Compared to more commonly encountered states of matter, Bose–Einstein condensates are extremely fragile. The slightest interaction with the external environment can be enough to warm them past the condensation threshold" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate

Active Member

Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

Re: Re:The 'Real' Deal

Faradave » December 10th, 2018, 7:37 am wrote:1. timelike as "tinholes", which connect a particle’s past to its future. It may be argued they aren't real objects but it can be equally-well argued that in 4D a particle is its worldline. Their unique worldlines is the only way for example, to distinguish two electrons.

2. lightlike as "pinholes", which temporarily connect particles. Their zero magnitude is why I argue photons don't exist. But even a null vector has direction, which suggest pinholes can change direction. pinhole + chronaxial spin = Gaussian field, with a "particular" center.

3. spacelike as "spinholes", which temporarily connect entangled particles. These are notoriously fragile, suggesting that a spinhole is a repurposed pinhole. Any interaction (via pinhole) breaks entanglement, as if the connection was yanked back into a lightlike inclination.

Yeah that's fine.

The guys at IAS and Stanford and MIT -- they are working mostly with descriptions of the inside of the inside of atoms. This is not just the nucleus, but the physics that goes on inside of nucleons : the quarks, the gluons, color charge, and so on. This is a type of physics called QCD.

I believe (to the extent of my understanding) HEP is a very active area of physics for a particular reason. At astronomical temperatures, nucleons will be freed from the nucleus and wander around. Common sense may dictate that this super-hot (1012 K) nuclear physics is far more difficult to describe than the nice stable nucleus of matter around us in the room right now. (Which I believe is around abouts 290 K)

Common sense is wrong. The opposite is true. At extreme temperatures (that "melt the nucleus") you can make a whole bunch of simplifying assumptions about quarks and gluons and color charge. These simplifying assumptions are lumped together into a technique called Asymptotic Freedom. In short, the mathematics is way easier for superheated matter.

Look around at the objects and materials in the room you are in. They have a nucleus in their atoms that's sitting there nice and snug going nowhere. The positively-charged protons are "locked" together by a short-ranged Strong Force.The physics that describes the atomic nuclei around us is dominated entirely by the Strong Force. Asshole grad students who are rambling away at a graduate seminar may use the following phrases to refer to the problem of trying to describe regular ol' room-temperature matter keep your eyes peeled and your ears awake to these squirely phrases :

"strongly-coupled fermionic matter"

"low temperature regime"

"weak energy limit".

They are all referring to the same thing. Modern physics of 2018 has not completely pinned down what is happening in low-temperature nuclei. Your high school physics textbook showed three quarks connected by springs. That picture is dead wrong. One researcher in lower-energy-QCD" described the nucleus as a whirring buzzing swirling dance of quantum particles. There is of course, a wealth of attempts to mathematically describe low-energy QCD. (if I had a powerpoint presentation, at this slide,) I would introduce the phrase QCD Vacuum. And maybe also QCD vacuum state, and QCD vacuum fluctuations. In this scenario, the quarks are not particles, but "fluctuations" of a background field. If this topic tickles your fancy, you can try hunting around with keywords "deconfinement phase" and maybe alongside "phase transitions in QCD"

Everything I have written up until now is the contextual backdrop of ER=EPR. The dudes who found correlations between quark-anti-quark pairs and Einstein-Rosen-Bridges are heavily trained in the above material. They can grab a chalk, go to the chalkboard and start writing the equations without prep. As far as I can see, they have thrown a few "worldsheets" into their witches brew -- which is almost certainly borrowed from String Theory; a subject that's beyond my pay grade.

For brevity, I have left out all the reasons why experts in General Relativity say that ERBs are valid predictions of Einstien's Field Equations. (I would surmise) a 14-week semester on introductory GR doesn't even cover these topics.... But again, if you don;'t know the equations intimately, you are not going to ever be able to perceive let alone find correlations with quark-anti-quark physics, or what that would ever have to do with maximal entanglement.

If you are going to run around the internet spending your time writing about wormholes connecting particles (not large black holes, but particles) your verbiage is going to have to draw a little closer to the above material. It's going to have to come within a few miles of it.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1846
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

Re: A Matter of Waves

Hugo Tetrode characterized particles as having or lacking independence. Some particles act together as if side-by-side and others act independently and we consider independent particles to be separated by space. Everything we know of space is conjecture based on our observation of particles since space can’t be observed directly.

Entangled particles violate our understanding of spacetime because they appear to be separated by space but they act together as if side-by-side. We can speculate about how entanglement connects remote particles through space and ask if such connections are “real” or we can question whether spacetime exists between entangled particles. Spacetime may be a highly persistent but not an ever present illusion.

I prefer to think of entangled particles as particles that locally lack a spacetime separation but are close enough to share a common Schroedinger wavelike connection even though an outside observer may see them as widely separated.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 802
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Next